Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TobagoJack who wrote (49977)	5/14/2004 4:01:48 PM
From: pezz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

<<What can government provide for you that they would not do in any case or that you cannot buy on your own from whomever you choose?>> A stable society that is necessary for mkts and business to function in perhaps? Courts, system of laws, police a defense from enemies ,a Fire department and many social services that are necessary just comes to mind off the top of my head. Look I'm not defending any social welfare state But whereas it is true that taxes are too much in the USA and government spending is outa control some money must be collected even as it is in HK. We just talkin about who it be collected from. Simple fairness would indicate that all pay some as all gain ...no? I see no reason that those of us that gain our living visa vie "investments" should be given any special tax breaks. and I don't buy the business needs it to spur investments. We got lotsa investments here in the USA in spite of our taxes. I don't think you have explained WHY <<Dividends, interests, and capital gain, as well as active income from offshore sources are not taxed, as they should not be.>> And why should <<There is a graduated HK tax on salary income that max out at 15.5%, >> I mean why tax one form of income and not another? If the graduated income tax should be enuff it would seem that it could be reduced if those who are making cap gains also paid their share..... Now this ain't to say i support the enormous taxing of higher income folks as in the USA. But with government spending such as it is we got no choice since the lower income folks can't afford to pay their fair share someone's gotta do it.

To: TobagoJack who wrote (49977)	5/15/2004 5:55:14 PM
From: Taikun	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

Jay, well put. Today is a grey day here in WA state but we are planning for a 3 week vacation on Vancouver Island and in Vancouver, spending our inflated USD, so we are happy. <What can government provide for you that they would not do in any case or that you cannot buy on your own from whomever you choose?> It is indeed true that there is no taxation without representation, but the opposite is not true. There is more representation without taxation than we'd care to admit. There is some truth in the thought that liberty dictates or requires higher taxes. One of the items government provides is military spending, which justified the origin of taxes (which were only on property, capital gains is a new entrant as a taxation source). In fact, in some nations, a century or two ago, taxes would be abolished when there were no military spending requirements. It is true, though, that there is representation without taxation. It is a surprising fact to some that the ratio of taxpayers to voters is closer to 2:1 than 1:1. The UK, in the 1980s, had 18m voters who were not taxpayers, or 1/3 of the population. They were students, pensioners, disabled persons, children, the poor. Since the beginning of taxation gov't has tried to avoid groups of voters steering public spending to areas of benefit far and beyond the tax revenues received from such voters. This phenomenon continues today as minority groups, gays, lobby for public spending beyond the taxes they provide. In other words, representation beyond taxation. I'm talking about direct taxation, though. Of course there is a different argument on indirect taxation, which is far more regressive. Also it is a lower contributor to total tax revenue as well as being more expensive than direct tax to collect. Representation without taxation is one of the reasons US taxpayers are incensed at groups like Ingersoll-Rand now domiciled in Bermuda. Through campaign contributions, they act like, say, minority groups, and enjoy benefits beyond the tax base they provide. If we went back to basics there would be taxation based on revenue by region and country. Companies like eBay and Amazon would no longer be able to run businesses free of taxation at the expense of physical businessowners. In the 1800s, landowners were highly taxed but business people like traders moved from tax region to tax region to avoid taxation. Taxation based on revenue by region and country would mean that Ingersoll-Rand would pay a flat tax on US revenue, ditto for a Hedge Fund (ie Close Brothers) in Cayman doing investing in the US. They benefit from trading equities from the US, an economy which, until recently, has enjoyed relative strength due in part to high military spending. In this process, governments could reinvest the savings on lower collection/preparation/enforcement costs, which do not grow GDP and are a drag on the economy. Taxes would be primarily for, as you say, the few things gov't can provide (ie military) that you can't provide yourself, because the voters and taxpayers still need gov't to organize such items as military. HK has an efficient tax system for HK, but geographically, I don't think the US could get by with a 15% tax even counting the savings on collection costs a flat tax would bring.